Reputation: 66320
I have a CSS like below to create a certain background colour when hovering over the table.
.cb_table-hover tbody tr:hover td ,
.cb_table-hover tbody tr:hover th {
background-color: #cfe2e8;
}
Within a <td>
I have a <div>
, which I would like to exclude from this hover colour madness.
<td>
<div class="override_td">
{% include '_test_edit.html' %}
</div>
</td>
So I came up with an negation for the initial hover css.
.cb_table-hover tbody tr:hover td:not(.override_td) ,
.cb_table-hover tbody tr:hover th:not(.override_td) {
background-color: #cfe2e8;
}
But it seems I failed already miserably because my Aptana Studio shouts that
The negation pseudo-class,
:not(X)
, is a functional notation taking a simple selector (excluding the negation pseudo-class itself) as an argument. It represents an element that is not represented by its argument. Negations may not be nested;:not(:not(...))
is invalid. Note also that since pseudo-elements are not simple selectors, they are not a valid argument to:not()
.Example The following selector matches all button elements in an HTML document that are not disabled.
button:not([DISABLED])
The following selector represents all but FOO elements.*:not(FOO)
The following group of selectors represents all HTML elements except links.html|*:not(:link):not(:visited)
So I am confused why it doesn't like my selector?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 391
Reputation: 115910
Your selector looks well-formed (and follows the rules laid out in the Aptana warning message), and it works correctly, according to this fiddle. You haven't mentioned an actual failure (only a complaint from Aptana), so I assume it will work just fine.
The reason for Aptana's complaint could be that it doesn't scan for invalid :not
very closely. It's possible that simply because your selector string contains two :not
pseudoclasses, Aptana assumes they are invalid, even though they are separated by a comma.
Upvotes: 1